|
|
|
Ultrasonic Parking Sensor |
|---|
| message from Scott on 23 May 2004 |
Any ideas how difficult this would be to fit to a car?
What else would I need to buy?
Ultrasonic Parking Sensor
· When fitted to your car this module will give an audible
indication of obstacles as you reverse
· Normally sold only as a kit, due to popular demand this
useful sensor is now available as a pre-soldered module
· Detections range: 5cm - 1.5m (adjustable).
from here
http://www.maplin.co.uk/default.asp?CartID=10723806&userid=newsletter&targetmodule=-711
|
| Ian Stirling replied to Scott on 23 May 2004 |
Well, it might seem that you'd look for the complete kit.
|
| BigWallop replied to Scott on 23 May 2004 |
http://www.maplin.co.uk/default.asp?CartID=10723806&userid=newsletter&targetmodule=-711
Do you have proper enclosures to fit the kit in ? The smaller board is the
ultra-sonic unit which should fit on the outside rear of the vehicle in a water
tight box. It has to be set at the correct angle so that it detects the things
behind the car that you don't want to reverse in to.
The larger board is the audible warning unit and needs to be sited in the
dashboard area away from any other electrical equipment or inside a screened box
so it doesn't pick up any other spurious emissions from anything else.
If you have all the bits and pieces that you need for fitting this device, then
you won't have any problems.
|
| dave @ stejonda replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
In message <02P7agnwsmsAFw$k@ntlworld.com>, geoff <raden@ntlworld.com>
writes
The Emergency Response Driver was simply acknowledging your true status.
|
| David replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
In article <c8vog2$2l7$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, IMM <abuse-imm@easy.com>
writes
Scott, do you need any more evidence?
|
| Lurch replied to Scott on 23 May 2004 |
For the price I'd buy a complete kit, these usually come with a dash mounted
display and/or an audible warning device and rear mounted sensors,, usually 2 or
4.
Personallly, I have a rear view camera and find that much better than the radar
systems.
|
| Dave Plowman replied to Lurch on 23 May 2004 |
My 'new' car came fitted with a PDC, and I found it so useful I fitted an
aftermarket one to the SD1 - which is a particularly difficult car to
judge where the rear is.
I'd not have thought of specifying one originally, but now wouldn't be
without it.
|
| Lurch replied to Lurch on 23 May 2004 |
Pardon?
Actually, I hhappened to have a colour covert camera laying around and a spare
reversed AV input on the dash mounted TV, thought I might as well stick one in.
I can't actually see the back of the van *that* well as I've completely lined
and racked the back of the van and the side mirrors aren't that good for judging
the distance to vehicles\obstructions behind accurately.
|
| Scott replied to Lurch on 24 May 2004 |
We all bow down to the mighty geoff.
I'm not getting one now because you say they are crap.
Tosser!
|
| Scott replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
Funny how the instructor on my recent emergency response driver course
didn't seem to think I required anymore lessons at the for the time being!
|
| Jerry. replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
<snip>
But that comment might not have been meant as the compliment you took it
as.....
|
| Scott replied to Jerry. on 24 May 2004 |
news:c8tmch$fp9$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Didn't take it as a compliment, just as what he said.
|
| Scott replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
Because of restricted visibility. Is that okay. I asked a question about how
difficult it would be to fit, and what else would I need. I wasn't asking if
it was ok to buy one. Are you normally this aggressive? I think you may have
some issues hat need dealing with.
|
| Scott replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
Well if the cap fits.....
|
| Scott replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
So what's my inadequacy for not being able to see the rear end of my car
over my boot?
I'm sure you manage just fine in your metro.
|
| IMM replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
Maxie has a pushbike and wears bikeclips too.
|
| Nick Brooks replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
Anyone notice the similarity between "Scott" and IMM ? Oy yes. the
headers are similar too.
Nick Brooks
|
| Andy Hall replied to Nick Brooks on 25 May 2004 |
A different version of Outlook Express.
However, I will agree that it is probably getting towards the time for
IMM to metamorphose into his next incarnation - sort of like Dr Who.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Scott replied to Andy Hall on 25 May 2004 |
Did IMM get slated for perfectly reasonable questions aswell?
Or maybe because he stands up for himself against the regulars?
|
| IMM replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
Scott, there is much rampant jealously here. I am much better looking, more
intelligent, drive better cars and can do the tango and the cha cha cha as
well. Maxie, is fat and ugly...and does Morris dancing........yes morris
dancing!!!!!
|
| IMM replied to IMM on 25 May 2004 |
Bertie, you are right....morris dancing is a give away.
|
| Nick Brooks replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
Re-reading the thread it seems as if it was you calling Geoff a "Tosser"
which wound him up and I have to say it does seem a bit unreasonable
given that his original comment only said that he failed to see why
anybody needed one.
IMM gets slated because he makes absurd suggesions and refuses ever to
admit he might be wrong. He loves it
|
| Scott replied to Nick Brooks on 25 May 2004 |
Because he implied that anyone who wants one could not drive properly.
Sounded high and mighty to me. Given the way you lot are springing to his
defence, maybe he is god.
|
| Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
Maybe you could do us all a favour and trim to context?
|
| Scott replied to Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) on 25 May 2004 |
Or even better just lurk until accepted into the click?
|
| Scott replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
lol - Very good!
|
| Andy Hall replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
He's probably the most regular and seldom asks questions.
I don't think that it's a question of standing up for oneself either.
The reality of what happened is that you asked a question about
parking sensors and Geoff said that he didn't see the point in them
except in cases of restricted visibility. Nothing more than that.
At that point you said
"We all bow down to the mighty geoff.
I'm not getting one now because you say they are crap.
Tosser!"
which was not really necessary in the light of what had been said.
As Geoff says, you were the one who became abusive.
I thought his reaction was remarkably restrained in the circumstances.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Scott replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
Who are you referring to?
|
| geoff replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
Yeah - this ...
|
| geoff replied to Scott on 23 May 2004 |
My brother bought my mother one for xmas a couple of years ago and I had
to fit it. Easy (if a bit fiddly, WRT cable runs) to install but as a
useful device, as good as a chocolate teapot.
It's much better to learn how to park properly
|
| Jerry. replied to geoff on 23 May 2004 |
<snip>
Exactly, cheaper too....
|
| Ian Stirling replied to Jerry. on 23 May 2004 |
Depends what the excess is.
|
| Dave Liquorice replied to Ian Stirling on 23 May 2004 |
Well we are talking parking, modern plastic wrap around bummpers take
parking knocks without damage.
Do these parking sensors spot 18" high bollards on your near side? I
hit one of those and dented the metal work but the bumper just sprang
back, probably just as well I did hit it mind as it was a mooring
bollard on a quay side...
|
| Jerry. replied to Dave Liquorice on 23 May 2004 |
No they don't ! You think they do but I can assure you they don't, and
repair is often replacement only due to distortion and or cracking.
Yes the plastic bounced back, I bet the bumper mountings didn't and nor any
metal work.
I've seen bumpers that look perfect to the casual eye, but when inspected
there is either crazing of the plastic or distortion due to being stretched,
on top of all that when the boot lid / hatch is opened the rear panel has
been pushed in - sometimes to the extent that the lid or hatch could not be
shut again !
|
| Dave Liquorice replied to Jerry. on 23 May 2004 |
The point of impact was directly on to the end of a 1 1/2" sq steel
section forming part of the subframe. I don't think I have *ever*
stopped quite so quickly in a car before an that includes the time a
(small) tree stepped out in front on me. The mooring bollard wasn't
going to move, and there was *very* little give in the steel.
That'll do for me... These wrap around plastic jobbies are fcking
expensive, pity Landrover Defenders aren't that comfortable for long
journeys, proper bumper U section galvanised steel 3/16 or is 1/4"
thick...
|
| John Stumbles replied to Dave Liquorice on 23 May 2004 |
<Ahem!> Just been round to neighbour's to make the peace after SWMBO
braille-parked our towing-enabled jamjar in front of his. Apart from cracked
numberplate (what do I need to get a replacement nowadays - his logbook?)
the towball (I guess) has taken a little chunk out of his rubbery-plastic
wrap-around bumper (Rover/Honda wotsit). He seems minded to live with that,
which is nice as I expect the cost of a new bumper + fitting could exceed
even the £300 or so NCD we'd lose if it went on our insurance.
|
| Jerry. replied to John Stumbles on 23 May 2004 |
It would be easier if he got the number plate and you reemburse him, IIRC
[1] you need both the 'logbook' and some other form of ID (and I assume they
have to match).
[1] don't normally have this problem as other rules apply to registered
vehicle dealers / repairers.
Don't show him my previous message, he'll go looking and could well find
more damage...
|
| BillV replied to John Stumbles on 24 May 2004 |
I was surprised to be asked for no docs when I got new number plates made.
|
| Dave Plowman replied to BillV on 24 May 2004 |
Same here. Some nice person backed into my front one so I went down the
local Halfords for a new one - with docs in pocket. Not asked for them and
I paid in cash.
|
| Dave Plowman replied to Dave Liquorice on 23 May 2004 |
Yes - they'll react to the kerb too as you go in at an angle. They'll even
work on a hedge. You soon learn by the speed of increase of the bleeps
what various things are.
|
| Andy Hall replied to Dave Liquorice on 23 May 2004 |
If you have enough sensors, yes.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| geoff replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
Hence my "restricted visibility" qualification above
|
| Ian Stirling replied to geoff on 25 May 2004 |
<snip>
Anyone else read Pratchetts treatment of morris dancing.
"The accordion's melting, Jason," sobbed Carter.
"... one, two, forward . .. bean setting!"
The accordion wheezed. The elves pressed in. Out of the
corner of his eye Jason saw a dozen grinning, fascinated
faces.
"Jason!"
"... one, two . . . Carter into the middle . . . one, two,
spin..."
Seven pairs of boots thudded down .. .
"Jason!"
"... one, two . . . spin . . . ready . . . one, two . . . back
. . . back . . . one, two . . . turn . . . KILL . . . and back, one,
two..."
Definately fun.
|
| geoff replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
Sorry sunshine, I'm not one asking after parking aids, I'm not the one
who got abusive
Don't blame me for your inadequacies
End of discussion, I can't be arsed to reply to you anymore
|
| David replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
Is that like not wearing new shoes until they have got used to your
feet?
|
| geoff replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
You asked for opinions, I gave mine
You can go and get a driving lesson now with the money you saved can't
you
|
| Andy Hall replied to geoff on 25 May 2004 |
I don't think that he implied that at all. He simply talked about
restricted vision which I took as meaning that the car is of a shape
that limits it.
If you thought that it meant that you couldn't see properly, that's up
to you. I certainly didn't see it meant as that and it didn't justify
your reaction.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| geoff replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
Well,
why the **** were you asking about them in the first place then ?
Logically
either you can park competently (in which case you don't) or you can't,
in which case you need instruction
|
| Andy Hall replied to geoff on 25 May 2004 |
This was after you began being abusive, so not relevant to your
original accusation of onanism.....
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| geoff replied to Scott on 23 May 2004 |
Is it stereoscopic ?
I fail to see why anybody needs one of these unless they have restricted
visibility
It's just another marketing gismo
|
| Dave Plowman replied to Scott on 23 May 2004 |
If you'd like a ready made one tested and working at a substantial
discount ;-) get in touch with me.
|
| John Stumbles replied to Dave Plowman on 23 May 2004 |
Does the ;-) indicate a legpull I'm missing or are you really offering one
of these Dave?
|
| Dave Plowman replied to John Stumbles on 23 May 2004 |
Not a leg pull, no. If the Maplin one is the Vellerman kit ready made,
I've got one spare. The sensors - which are on a separate board are in a
suitable box too.
|
| Terry D replied to Dave Plowman on 23 May 2004 |
Modern car styling, with 45 degree rear screens and high body levels to
increase boot capacity tends to make reverse parking a nightmare and is
largely based on guesswork. I would welcome anything to make parking
easier. Why not fit sensors to the front as well. I appreciate the typical
macho attitude of scorn at these devices, but why not make life a little
easier? I've had a licence for 43 years and have never had any sort of
collision, but I still can't park to within 5cm :-)
Terry D.
|
| Ian Stirling replied to Terry D on 23 May 2004 |
What I'd like to see is a plan view of the car, and surroundings but this
does imply either a large mast, or several cameras.
However, cameras of adequate capacity are very cheap.
|
| Richard Savage replied to Terry D on 24 May 2004 |
My (very elderly) Range Rover is a doddle to park and can be driven
through gaps that seem to terrify modern cars, e.g. through width
restrictors without slowing whilst the Astra drivers look around for
pedestrian guidance, this is simply because it is for all intents
square. I can see the front coners to within 2 cm and the *actual* rear
corners, add to this the flat sides and you have a vehicle that is easy
to position (and it's narrower and shorter than a Mondeo before anyone
says anything about 4x4s clogging the roads). My SAAB 95 on the other
hand is a delightful confection of swooping curves and vanishing corners
and is, consequently, a nightmare to park.
Friend has a Ford Galaxy with all the toys including front and rear
distance whotsits. The driver can see nothing of the car in front of
the windscreen and he finds the parking radar very useful.
My 2d FWIW
Richard
|
| Dave Liquorice replied to Richard Savage on 24 May 2004 |
Being shorter than a Mondeo isn't hard. They are the same length as
most parking bays. If you park back end in against a wall and you want
access to the boot the front end will be overhanging the parking bay
line.
The width has never worried me but now you mention it it always does
seem a squeeze getting in and out and I do tend to look for spaces
with a mini on one side...
Don't worry this Mondeo example is 10 years old but only 135,000
miles. But with salt on the roads from early November through to April
I doubt it will last another winter up here. Probably get a Discovery
next on the basis that Range Rovers are even more too expensive. B-)
|
| Bob Eager replied to Richard Savage on 24 May 2004 |
I agree. The Galaxy (I have one) is a pig to park at the 'front'. Rear
is a lot easier, but the gizmos are VERY useful for the front.
|
| Jerry. replied to Bob Eager on 24 May 2004 |
So, presumably you have the sensor operating all the time, not just parking.
If you can't see the front to park how do you see to drive in traffic, other
than leaving an mile gap when at junctions etc. ?
|
| Bob Eager replied to Jerry. on 24 May 2004 |
Don't be silly. I can take it to about 40cm before I cease to see a gap.
It's that last 40cm I need for a tight parking space.
|
| Scott replied to Bob Eager on 24 May 2004 |
I bet jerry and geoff could see that extra 40 cm. You must be a bad driver!
|
| Jerry. replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
I certainly can at parking speeds. As I said in another message, it's about
knowing how long your vehicle is, once you know that you can judge a
distance using any part of the vehicle, for example looking at your door
mirror as your vehicle moves 40cm in relation to another parked vehicle or
other fixed object IYSWIM.
|
| Jerry. replied to Terry D on 23 May 2004 |
<snip>
They still don't help with parking within and square to the marked
space.....
If you need that amount of help you REALLY should not be driving IMO :~(
|
| MBQ replied to Jerry. on 24 May 2004 |
Yes they do. You can apply more concentration to the squaring up
without worrying so much as to what is behind.
MBQ
|
| Jerry. replied to MBQ on 24 May 2004 |
news:<2hcb7rFbci05U4@uni-berlin.de>...
If you can't enter a box to be square when you stop moving no sensor telling
you that you are about to hit something is going to help. It's about knowing
how wide, how long, what steering lock etc your vehicle has....
IMO drivers should be able to drive as well backwards as they do forwards
before they are allowed onto the road alone, meaning you should be able to
reverse along a marked out road and also to swap lanes whilst coming to rest
with both sets of wheels square to the marked kerb line.
|
| Scott replied to Jerry. on 24 May 2004 |
IMO you should get out more!
|
| Jerry. replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
<snip>
No, I should be able to *stay in* more, I see to many crap drivers already
|
| Scott replied to Jerry. on 24 May 2004 |
news:c8tcm0$9pq$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Yes because you never know when you may need to reverse along a marked out
road and also to swap lanes whilst coming to rest with both sets of wheels
square to the marked kerb line.
|
| Jerry. replied to Scott on 24 May 2004 |
Well there is nothing that says you must be pointing forwards to drive along
a road, only that you should pass to the left side (unless told otherwise)
on a normal road....
Apart from that, it's all to do with the ability to control a vehicle, by
being able to do what I suggested it would show that the driver can do so.
|
| nightjar replied to Jerry. on 25 May 2004 |
There is. The Construction and Use Regulations 1986, regulation 106
prohibits driving in reverse 'further than necessary'. Cases that have been
tried suggest that is not likely to be interprested as being more than a few
yards.
Colin Bignell
|
| Bob Eager replied to Jerry. on 24 May 2004 |
There probably is....
ISTR someone who had a failed gearbox (stuck in reverse) and decided to
drive two miles home. They booked him.
Section 179 of the Highway Code probably applies, also Road Vehicles
(Construction & Use) Regulations 1986, section 106.
|
| Toby replied to Scott on 25 May 2004 |
When spotting a parking space in Highbury at 2.30 on a match day?
(in a Russ Swift style)
|
| nightjar replied to Jerry. on 24 May 2004 |
Need and want are entirely different things. I learned to drive in London
and I routinely park a 4.5m vehicle in spaces that Sussex drivers find too
small for a Metro. However, I wouldn't now buy a motor without parking
sensors. They make it soooo much easier. They are particularly useful
parking in my garage, where, if I want to be able to get out, I have to get
as close as I can to the wall on the nearside, without scraping the brick
pier half way down. Being a manufacturer's option, when I plug the tow hook
in, they compensate for the extra length and I can use them to position
myself exactly right for the trailer bar.
Colin Bignell
|
|
